P
- Status
S
Saint_Sebastian
Guest
P
peary1
Guest
S
Saint_Sebastian
Guest
M
Monty61
Guest
S
Saint_Sebastian
Guest
C
CPA2
Guest
Catholic schools cannot compete with “free” public education. The answer to better education and higher teacher salaries is competition.As I have studied the principles of Catholic Social Justice, I am confused at this issue. Partially because I am in the middle. I am a Catholic School teacher. If we are valuable and should be compensated for our work, why are CSTs paid such abyssmally low salaries?
I think some of it comes from the school formally employing nuns as teachers. But, I don’t know. Any thoughts?
“Public” education does not need more money; it already has too much money, even in poor Louisiana. The United States spends more money per student than most other countries in the world; however, the academic performance is worse than other countries. More money for education is not the answer. “Public” education is inefficient and ineffective.
The answer is to take the power from the state governments and give the power to the parents in the form of universal vouchers. Friedman proposed vouchers as a way to separate government financing of education from government administration of schools. The “public” schools would now have to please the parents instead of the state legislature. Viva la competition!
I see universal school vouchers as inevitable. School vouchers are a 50 year-old idea that is backed by solid economic research. Means-tested vouchers for poor families and failing school vouchers have already been tried with great success. All we need now is a test of universal school vouchers.
The only real opposition to universal school vouchers is the education bureaucracy and teachers’ unions. When people strongly support universal school vouchers, they come up against the teachers’ unions and the educational bureaucracy, the government civil service.
C
CPA2
Guest
Commentary: Free to ChooseAs I have studied the principles of Catholic Social Justice, I am confused at this issue. Partially because I am in the middle. I am a Catholic School teacher. If we are valuable and should be compensated for our work, why are CSTs paid such abyssmally low salaries?
I think some of it comes from the school formally employing nuns as teachers. But, I don’t know. Any thoughts?
Wall Street Journal
By MILTON FRIEDMAN
June 9, 2005; Page A16
With respect to education, I pointed out that government was playing three major roles: (1) legislating compulsory schooling, (2) financing schooling, (3) administering schools. I concluded that there was some justification for compulsory schooling and the financing of schooling, but “the actual administration of educational institutions by the government, the ‘nationalization,’ as it were, of the bulk of the ‘education industry’ is much more difficult to justify on [free market] or, so far as I can see, on any other grounds.” Yet finance and administration “could readily be separated. Governments could require a minimum of schooling financed by giving the parents vouchers redeemable for a given sum per child per year to be spent on purely educational services. . . . Denationalizing schooling,” I went on, “would widen the range of choice available to parents. . . . If present public expenditure were made available to par! ents regardless of where they send their children, a wide variety of schools would spring up to meet the demand. . . . Here, as in other fields, competitive enterprise is likely to be far more efficient in meeting consumer demand than either nationalized enterprises or enterprises run to serve other purposes.”
What really led to increased interest in vouchers was the deterioration of schooling, dating in particular from 1965 when the National Education Association converted itself from a professional association to a trade union. Concern about the quality of education led to the establishment of the National Commission of Excellence in Education, whose final report, “A Nation at Risk,” was published in 1983. It used the following quote from Paul Copperman to dramatize its own conclusion:
Each generation of Americans has outstripped its parents in education, in literacy, and in economic attainment. For the first time in the history of our country, the educational skills of one generation will not surpass, will not equal, will not even approach, those of their parents."
“A Nation at Risk” stimulated much soul-searching and a whole series of major attempts to reform the government educational system. These reforms, however extensive or bold, have, it is widely agreed, had negligible effect on the quality of the public school system. Though spending per pupil has more than doubled since 1970 after allowing for inflation, students continue to rank low in international comparisons; dropout rates are high; scores on SATs and the like have fallen and remain flat. Simple literacy, let alone functional literacy, in the United States is almost surely lower at the beginning of the 21st century than it was a century earlier. And all this is despite a major increase in real spending per student since “A Nation at Risk” was published.
Throughout this long period, we have been repeatedly frustrated by the gulf between the clear and present need, the burning desire of parents to have more control over the schooling of their children, on the one hand, and the adamant and effective opposition of trade union leaders and educational administrators to any change that would in any way reduce their control of the educational system.
We have been involved in two initiatives in California to enact a statewide voucher system (in 1993 and 2000). In both cases, the initiatives were carefully drawn up, and the voucher sums moderate. In both cases, nine months or so before the election, public opinion polls recorded a sizable majority in favor of the initiative. In addition, of course, there was a sizable group of fervent supporters, whose hopes ran high of finally getting control of their children’s schooling. In each case, about six months before the election, the voucher opponents launched a well-financed and thoroughly unscrupulous campaign against the initiative. Television ads blared that vouchers would break the budget, whereas in fact they would reduce spending since the proposed voucher was to be only a fraction of what government was spending per student. Teachers were induced to send home with their students misleading propaganda against the initiative. Dirty tricks of every variety were financed from a very deep purse. The result was to convert the initial majority into a landslide defeat. This has also occurred in Washington state, Colorado and Michigan. Opposition like this explains why progress has been so slow in such a good cause.
The good news is that, despite these setbacks, public interest in and support for vouchers and tax credits continues to grow. Legislative proposals to channel government funds directly to students rather than to schools are under consideration in something like 20 states. Sooner or later there will be a breakthrough; we shall get a universal voucher plan in one or more states. When we do, a competitive private educational market serving parents who are free to choose the school they believe best for each child will demonstrate how it can revolutionize schooling.
Mr. Friedman, chairman of the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation, is a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a Nobel laureate in economics.
C
CPA2
Guest
Name 7 possible objections to the school voucher plan and Milton Friedman’s answer to those objections.
- The church-state issue. “…Vouchers would go to parents, not to schools. Under the GI bills, veterans have been free to attend Catholic or other colleges and, so far as we know, no First Amendment issue has ever been raised.”
- Financial cost. “…(There is) present discrimination against parents who send their children to nonpublic schools. Universal vouchers would end the inequity of using tax funds to school some children but not others.”
- The possibility of fraud. ‘…The voucher would have to be spent in an approved school or teaching establishment and could be redeemed for cash only by such schools.”
- The racial issue. “Discrimination under a voucher plan can be prevented at least as easily as in public schools by redeeming vouchers only from schools that do not discriminate.”
- The economic class issue. “Some have argued that the great value of the public school has been as a melting pot, in which rich and poor, native- and foreign-born, back and white have learned to live together. That image…is almost entirely false for large cities. There, the public school has fostered residential stratification, by tying the kind and cost of schooling to residential location. It is no accident that most of the country’s outstanding public schools are in high-income enclaves.”
- Doubt about new schools. “What reason is there to suppose that alternatives will really arise? The reason is that a market would develop where it does not exist today…The one prediction that can be made is that only those schools that satisfy their customers will survive…Competition would see to that.”
- The impact on public schools. “The threat to public schools arises from their defects, not their accomplishments. In small, closely knit communities where public schools, particularly elementary schools, are now reasonably satisfactory, not even the most comprehensive voucher plan would have much effect…But elsewhere, and particularly in the urban slums where the public schools are doing such a poor job, most parents would undoubtedly try to send their children to nonpublic schools.”
C
CPA2
Guest
Something as important as important as education should not be administered by the state. If you cannot see from one end of an organization to the other end, you are already in trouble. Politicians NEVER spend a minute actually experiencing public schools, nor do their children, grandchildren, and yet they are the ones writing flawed policies for public schools.
If we are going to improve the school system, we are going to have to have competition. School vouchers to parents with no strings attached are a step in the right direction.
My wife was a teacher in the public schools and now she is a college professor. We have seen first hand the inflexibility and the stupidity of a school system administered by the state.
The “public schools” are no longer public. These schools are government schools.
If we are going to improve the school system, we are going to have to have competition. School vouchers to parents with no strings attached are a step in the right direction.
My wife was a teacher in the public schools and now she is a college professor. We have seen first hand the inflexibility and the stupidity of a school system administered by the state.
The “public schools” are no longer public. These schools are government schools.
L
leonie
Guest
I’m curious–do Catholic school teachers get free or greatly reduced tuition for their kids?
I think they should!
I think they should!
C
CPA2
Guest
“Providing education for everyone benefits society as a whole.” That is a true statement. Education is needed for economic growth. However, using the social benefit of education to justify using tax money to finance public education is not valid. It is just bad economics. “Adam Smith’s invisible hand makes a student’s private interest (higher earnings) serve the social interest (economic growth) (Friedman).” People will go to school anyway, even without “free schooling.” If the marginal benefit is greater than the marginal cost, people will continue to go to school. This country had universal education long before there was “public education.” The real question is, should we have a protected public monopoly (public schools) or market competition? I vote for market competition.
Dr. Max Gammon has a theory of bureaucratic displacement. He says that in a bureaucratic system an increase in expenditure will be matched by a fall in production…such systems act like black holes in the economic universe.
Look at any school district over a period of time. You will see the number of staff and supervisors exploding. “From 1968 – 1974 students were up 1%, staff was up 15%, teachers were up 14%, and supervisors were up 44% (Friedman).” It costs between $7,000 and $9,000 per child for nine months of public schooling. It costs 1/3 to 1/2 of that amount in private Catholic schools. SAT scores are also higher in private schools. Who needs a protected public monopoly such as the public school system? I vote for vouchers for parents. Let the parents decide, not the teachers’ unions and government.
Dr. Max Gammon has a theory of bureaucratic displacement. He says that in a bureaucratic system an increase in expenditure will be matched by a fall in production…such systems act like black holes in the economic universe.
Look at any school district over a period of time. You will see the number of staff and supervisors exploding. “From 1968 – 1974 students were up 1%, staff was up 15%, teachers were up 14%, and supervisors were up 44% (Friedman).” It costs between $7,000 and $9,000 per child for nine months of public schooling. It costs 1/3 to 1/2 of that amount in private Catholic schools. SAT scores are also higher in private schools. Who needs a protected public monopoly such as the public school system? I vote for vouchers for parents. Let the parents decide, not the teachers’ unions and government.
D
Darron_Steele
Guest
C
CPA2
Guest
The concentration of power in the hands of government creates special interests. “Public” (government) education is an example. The education system is not public because the power now resides with our state governments, not our local governments. This concentration of power creates the specialist interest groups of the teachers’ unions and state employees. The educational bureaucracy does not want competition. They are the ones who oppose school vouchers.
C
CPA2
Guest
My hero is Milton Friedman. He said, “Even in the earliest years of the Republic, not only the cities but almost every town and village and most rural districts had schools…Though schooling was neither compulsory or free, it was practically universal (slaves of, course, excepted). In his report for 1836, the superintendent of common schools of the sate of New York asserted: ‘Under any view of the subject it is reasonable to believe, that in the common schools, private schools and academies, the number of children actually receiving instruction is equal to the whole number between five and sixteen years of age.’ Conditions doubtless varied from state to state, but by all accounts schooling was widely available to (white) children from families at all economic levels.”
“The first compulsory attendance law was enacted by Massachusetts in 1852, but attendance did not become compulsory in all states until 1918. Government control was primarily local well into the twentieth century (Friedman).”
“Our own view is that an unrestricted voucher would be the most effective way to reform an educational system that now helps to shape a life of misery, poverty, and crime for many children of the inner city; that it would undermine the foundations of much of such economic segregation as exists today (Friedman).”
“In our judgment the very poor would benefit the most from the voucher plan…The perceived self-interest of the educational bureaucracy is the key obstacle to the introduction of market competition in schooling (Friedman).”
References
Friedman, M., & Friedman, R. D. (1990). Free to Choose. New York:
“The first compulsory attendance law was enacted by Massachusetts in 1852, but attendance did not become compulsory in all states until 1918. Government control was primarily local well into the twentieth century (Friedman).”
“Our own view is that an unrestricted voucher would be the most effective way to reform an educational system that now helps to shape a life of misery, poverty, and crime for many children of the inner city; that it would undermine the foundations of much of such economic segregation as exists today (Friedman).”
“In our judgment the very poor would benefit the most from the voucher plan…The perceived self-interest of the educational bureaucracy is the key obstacle to the introduction of market competition in schooling (Friedman).”
References
Friedman, M., & Friedman, R. D. (1990). Free to Choose. New York:
R
RWMorris
Guest
I have taught at both Catholic and Episcopal schools. Both tried to keep salaries at about 80% of the area average public school teacher’s salary. It wasn’t great money but I loved my job and my students.As I have studied the principles of Catholic Social Justice, I am confused at this issue. Partially because I am in the middle. I am a Catholic School teacher. If we are valuable and should be compensated for our work, why are CSTs paid such abyssmally low salaries?
I think some of it comes from the school formally employing nuns as teachers. But, I don’t know. Any thoughts?
On the flip side I also put my children through Catholic and Episcopal schools. It was a struggle, even with the tuition breaks I got.
As a side note, there is a small Protestant school in my area that has been in business for over 40 years. They charge no tuition and their entire staff are all volunteers. They operate completely on charitable donations.
C
CPA2
Guest
“…(There is) present discrimination against parents who send their children to nonpublic schools. Universal vouchers would end the inequity of using tax funds to school some children but not others.” Milton Friedman
If we had school vouchers there would be a greater demand for teachers and higher pay. Government schools are top heavy in administrators. In the government community college where I taught, there were 24 students per teacher and 12 students per administrator! I quit because the students were making more money than I was.
Governments are incompetent in administration, but they are experts in collecting money (taxes). School vouchers would combine the best of both worlds, private administration of education and government taxes.
R
RWMorris
Guest
I totally agree. Although I abhor federal taxes other than the minimum necessary to maintain the defense of liberty, our local taxes can certainly be used to fund vouchers so that all children can afford an education. Local communities should set minimum standards and allow parents the choice of where and how their children are educated.
The Department of Education should be terminated post-haste with extreme prejudice.
R
RWMorris
Guest
I can’t speak for all Catholic schools, but the one I worked for gave teachers a tution break for their kids. I don’t remember exactly how much it was, but I think it was 50%. I am no longer a teacher, but my current parrish gives parrish members a tuition discount, also.
R
RobbyS
Guest
Furthermore, unionization has worked against the relative position of teachers. Both the AFT and the NEA, especially the latter ,have large bureaucracies, with many officials earning more than 6 figures. Their interest in teacher salaries is limited to how much dues money they can extract from their members. Much of this goes into the pocket of politicians, especially the Democratic Party. They are against vouchers because this diverts money from the public schools to private schools where they have fewer members. But there is an ideological reason as well. The reigning ideology of the unions is John Dewey progressivism, which is hostile to religion. Al Shanker, the log time head of the AFT, was committed to French-style laicism (secularism), which why he and William Bennet and Willliam F. Buckley were at odds, although Shanker like them would have preferred a stronger emphasis on academics in the public schools.
- Status